"Until death do us part" 4

[SantaMufasa]

(I just saw this phrase appear in a reply in a thread in the "...Ethics..." forum.)

Who was the "illitarut" who thunk up and popularised this convoluted tripe, which everyone seems to perpetuate in their wedding vows? Although it may not sound as "tripefully" poetic, wouldn't vows be more precise if they read, "We shall not part until death"?

Just because 50 million people say a silly thing, isn't it still a silly thing?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[GwydionM]

First, have you checked when the formula became standard? What was Standard English back then?

Second, it is traditional and solumn, definitely sounding like the English of the King James Bible.

Third, it is precise enough. The assumption at the time was that a marriage could not be dissolved while both partners were alive. And also that remarriage was OK for either if the other died - which wasn't true for women in all cultures.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[sleipnir214]

SantaMufasa:
I'm with you.

When I got married, I had two requirements for the ceremony: the precessional would not be "The Wedding March" (my bride arrived at the altar to Pachelbel's "Canon in D"), and the "death parts" bit had to be grammatically correct (we used "until we are parted by death").


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[edfair]

Goes back into Anglican history probably based on the 1623 (I think) prayerbook.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[CajunCenturion]

That phrase does have an interesting history. First, the traditional phrase is not "death do us part" but rather, "death us do part". The phrase can be traced back to 1549, and actually was "till death us departe" where the verb departe meant to separate. The Latin translation was "donec mors nos separavit" - until death has separated us.

A further issue was that at that time, it was normal to use the subjuctive case (departe rather than departeth) for actions that might occur in the future.

That particular phrase was chosen by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the very first Archbishop of Canterbury, appointed by Henry VIII in 1533. The reason he chose subject-object-verb (death us departe) rather than the normal English subject-verb-object (death departe us) is because liturgically, at that time, the Latin word order was more appropriate.

At some point between the original in 1533, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, "departe" become "do part".

So an answer to your question, that "illitarut" was the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[tsdragon]

Beautifully elaborated CC!

(I did know about the "us do" vs "do us" part already.)


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[Chacalinc]

donec mors nos separavit
->
till death us departe
->
till death us do part
->
until death do us part

wow, it's very interesting how a single phrase is changing over the time. CajunCenturion, this is an excellent explanation.

And how is the correct phrase in english, I mean -for correct- in traditional english, not clergy nor rites.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> in traditional english
Not really sure what traditional English is

Actually, at least within Protestant Churches, there is considerable movement towards using contemporary and inclusive language in the liturgy. In the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, used by the Episcopal Church in the USA, the phrase is "until we are parted by death".

Another option might be: "Until death parts us."


Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SantaMufasa]

John (CC),

You explanation is excellent. I particularly prefer your Option 2: "Until death parts us."...since I would rather have death part my wife and me than us the weak, passive voice of "until we are parted by death".

Thanks, bud!

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[Thadeus]

Remember that this phrase is at the end of the "vows" portion of the ceremony.

At the weddings I attend, it is becoming the norm to hear: "as I join my life to yours all the rest of my days."

~Thadeus

 

[UniqueFD]

But how may of them, these days, mean what they promise (however it's worded)?

Tony
___________________________________________________
Reckless words pierce like a sword,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing (Solomon)

 

[KenCunningham]

True. Perhaps it could now be replaced by 'as long as either of us can be bothered.'

 

[sleipnir214]

SantaMufasa:
I wanted the active voice ("Until death parts us..." or something similar), too. However, the decision was not solely mine....


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

>Perhaps it could now be replaced by 'as long as either of us can be bothered.'

Since that would be stating the obvious, why not skip that step entirely?

 

[Chacalinc]

'as long as either of us can be bothered.'

hahahahahahaha D

Not really sure what traditional English is

I mean the english spoken in the street, at home, et cetera, not in the church nor spoken by joda.

Cheers.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

However, the decision was not solely mine

Come on be honest you had no say in the decision, did you?


Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'.

 

[sleipnir214]

DrJavaJoe:
Actually, yes I did. My Bride wanted to go with the traditional wording, but I balked, arguing that in modern English the phrase doesn't even parse. I wanted something similar to SantaMufasa's active-voice phrasing, but the compromise was to use modern passive voice.

That and the use of Pachelbel for the bride's entry were the only two things over which I had the guts to take a stand against the Great Wedding Juggernaut. As for the rest of it, I understood that the role of the groom was to arrive in the appointed place at the appointed time in the appointed garment, and to be there alive, awake, and sober enough for the vows to be legally binding.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> sober enough Let's not ask for too much here.


Another alternative often heard is today's ceremonies is:
"As long as you both shall live".

I found out last week that although a date has been set, there is a wedding in my future as my son is now engaged. When the time comes, I'll let you know what wording they she chooses.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SantaMufasa]

Actually, a resolution to all if this is to simply use Prince Humperdinck's wording in the movie "Princess Bride":

Skip to the end.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[SilentAiche]

er, [blue]'til the bride died[/blue]

or

[blue] 'til the groom met doom...[/blue]

or

[green]'til I have any sense at all...[/green]

treboR

[blue]_____________________________________________________
If you need immediate assistance, please raise your hand.
If you are outside of Raleigh, raise your hand and say[/blue] [red]Ooh! Ooh![/red]